The word "community" is a standard component of our contemporary
lexicon. It is crucial to political, religious and educational jargon. Almost
every spokesperson from these various fields uses community as the source
of either idyllic direction or repugnant spite. Community standards, community
policing, community input, community gardens, community center, community
values, community schools, community relations. No matter who is speaking,
or what agenda they tout, community is an essential reference. However,
it is rare to find the details that define a community such as its size,
members or organization.

Whose community standards held as the norm? The Ku Klux Klan or the Black
Panthers? Which communities are being policed? The suburbs or the inner
city? Which communities' input is valued? The soccer moms' or the strip-malls'?

Still, this elusive paragon of ascription is cried for, particularly
by the educational establishment, as a vital component to our world. Psychologists
and sociologists refer to three primary socialization factors: parents,
peers and community. One psychologist that sites parents as a primary socializer
is Diana Baumrind. She is a developmentalist who describes the three styles
of parenting as authoritarian, permissive and authoritative. She believes
that a child's skills for relating with the world are developed from the
mode of parenting used in raising the child (Eggen & Kauchak, 1992,
pp. 105-106). Some believe that parents have no influence on their children,
that peers, or even genetics, play the prominent role in socialization.
Judith Rich Harris believes that since children spend most of their time
with other children, and get the most pleasure from peer social interactions,
the feedback from peers is the most powerful motivator (Harris, 1998, pp.
285-288). Lev Vygotsky asserted that there is a "zone of proximal development"
in which a child finds relevance, maturity and knowledge. Depending on who
and what is around the child at the time of their budding will determine
the richness of their adult fruition (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86). This is the
key to defining a child's community. Who are the people that surround a
child, and to what extent do they exert an influence?

Community

To determine who surrounds the individual, we must first describe that
person, that child. While no one child can be exactly the same as another,
there are some generalizations that ring true for most. Most children are
surrounded primarily by a family. Even when the family is temporary, or
a foster family, there is an essential unit. In many cases today there is
some form of a nuclear, or conjugal family. This small unit is usually one
or two parents and one or more children. The nuclear family is actually
a recent phenomena. There are some current examples of extended, or consanguine
families living together. However, in the contemporary United States of
America this extended family with blood ties is an exception. Currently,
the extended family would included two or three other conjugal families
that frequently interact (Bankston, 1999, p.289). This too is a rapidly
extinguishing reality. These are, theoretically, the immediate people who
surround a child's life. While it is convenient to use parents as one simple
socializing factor, in reality, the term "parents" manifests as
the combined efforts of the family, conjugal and consanguine.

It is those who reside outside of the family, and have the opportunity
to consistently participate in the child's life that make up the community.
In relation to a child there are two communal influences: peers and adults.
For the purposes of this paper, the term community will refer to adult influences,
and the term peers will be self defining. The power of peer influence deserves
its own exploration, so this paper will only focus on the adult community.

There are two spheres of community: active and passive. Both have the
opportunity to personally interact with a particular set of children on
a consistent basis. To quantify a specific time and frequency for interaction
would be quite difficult. A personal interaction once a year is obviously
not frequent. Likewise, a passing two second glance through a car window
is not a substantial interaction. It is precisely because of its nebulous
nature that communities are difficult to define. Any attempt to set boundaries
is ultimately arbitrary and subject to the perspectives of the definer (International
encyclopedia, 1968, pp. 157-158). The definitions contained in this paper
are focused on the lives of children.

Many people may have the opportunity to interact with children but choose
not to. For this reason, community is divided into two categories: active
and passive. Active communities are either invited into the lives of children,
or take the initiative to be there. These may be people who work at schools,
talk to their neighbors, or run the corner market. Conversely, there are
people, who for what ever reasons, do not capitalize on their interactive
opportunities. They are the passive community. These too could be people
who work at schools, don't talk to their neighbors, or run the corner market.
It might be that they feel threatened by those interactions, or maybe overly
burdened to give up their time and effort. These people may not be able
to physically interact with the community, or are shunned by the same.

Beyond the community is the local and national society. Local society
is the people who live relatively near a child, but do not have the opportunity
to spend significant time with her. These are the fellow citizens of a district,
city, county or state; people who have impact on the life of a child by
enacting laws or being the member of a professional sports franchise, but
do not have frequent personal contact with that child. This is the distinction
between society and community.

There are also members of a national society which may exert some collateral
influence on the life of a child, but they do not materially or personally
participate in that child's life. A large corporation may hire a father
and increase the family's monetary stability, but at the same time decrease
the time parent and child spend together. Congress may declare war and send
a mother who is an army reservist into harm's way, possibly leaving the
child an orphan. Still, the politicians and CEOs do not have consistent,
intimate impacts on the lives of most children.

There is one other influential perspective: global. That of the Earth's
entire population. The devastation of war and pollutants, of mass consumption
and ethnic intolerance plague the lives of us all. The power of space travel,
cultural communication, and shared inspirations lend positive aspects to
everyone. Still, there is rare personal, consistent contact between people
on opposite sides of the globe.

Community Organizations

Within the active and passive communities there are several formal and
informal organizations; organizations in the sense that they contain many
people collaboratively planning and executing activities or events. The
communities are pluralistic, diverse. They contain representatives from
a myriad of perspectives, and therefore, they also tend to disagree. This
diversification does offer positive contributions by combining such resources
as "time, knowledge, money, official position, energy, popularity,
social status (International encyclopedia, 1968, p. 160)." When the
members of the community coordinate their resources and efforts they can
reduce individual efforts and costs while expanding group benefits. Because
so many different people must come to a consensus the process to initiate
action can be slow. Once the community is organized then further activities
become easier.

The community organization may strive to meet material or nonmaterial
goals. Material goals could be a mural, a garden or a fund-raiser. Nonmaterial
goals are less tangible, like improved childhood literacy, race relations
or parent/teacher communication (International encyclopedia, 1968, p. 169).
Successful community organizations contain five formal, or informal, components:
a) the physical needs of the organization are in good condition (e.g. meeting
place), b) the members are in good physical and mental health, c) there
is a tolerable fit between the community's needs and the group to serve
them, d) there is a consensus to norms and expectations, and e) the expectations
are fulfilled (p. 163).

Some community organizations that interact with children are schools,
businesses, spiritual communions, neighborhoods, sports teams and clubs.
Each of these have varying degrees of formality depending on the community
(Bankston, 1999, p.294). There are traditional schools and home-school collectives.
There are office buildings and street vendors. There are synagogues and
covens. There are city blocks and country farms. There are little league
teams and pick-up ball games. There are NRA meetings and quilting bees.
Each one of these may contain active child participants from birth to eighteen
years old. The members of these organizations have varying degrees of contact
from an hour once a month, to eight hours every day. To qualify the benefit,
or detriment, of these interactions is purely subjective, yet, their impact
is palpable.

Conclusion

In every case of community interaction, children learn how to participate
in their world. Children learn not necessarily by the instructions given
from the adults, but rather how adults interact with each other. Children
learn cooperation, concession, camaraderie, humor, and all their opposites.
The less children see adults in active participation with their community,
the less children will be able to form and maintain communities of their
own. It is this cycle which has driven the USA's society into a critical
state of individuation. Individuals no longer have the abilities and skills
to interact with others. With no interest or acknowledgement of others,
our choices turn inward and become selfish. Likewise, our connections become
thin, even within the family structure. This disconnection is the root of
loneliness and loss of purpose. Without purpose there is despair and destruction.
With purpose we overcome obstacles, synergize possibility and co-create
the future. Just as the individual is affected by family, community, society
and global forces, the individual has the ability to affect change in return.